“
TL;DR
Approximately 31.2% strongly agreed it would negatively impact rural life, and 32.9% rejected “artificial meat” as a viable future alternative.
Frontiers in Nutrition · 5 authors, 3 centres
This summary was generated by AI from a single paper. It has not been reviewed by a clinician and is not clinical advice. Verify against the source before acting on it.
Approximately 31.2% strongly agreed it would negatively impact rural life, and 32.9% rejected “artificial meat” as a viable future alternative.
Approximately 31.2% strongly agreed it would negatively impact rural life, and 32.9% rejected “artificial meat” as a viable future alternative. Significant differences in responses were observed by country of origin, age, and education level, with richer and more educated countries tending to be more willing to try “artificial meat.” A large majority were unwilling to pay more for “artificial meat” than for conventional meat.